>
> This doesn't feel right. Tim's point about supersets worries me.
> And clients that don't look at enough scope to be able to differentiate
> future/private types.
>
> We have specific types of resources in the spec. Semantic/conceptual types
> of resources. It seems better to state "this resource is of <THIS> type"
> than to let it be inferred by the property set.
>
> That inference step is rather brittle over time.
I agree with Greg. I believe that all client implementors can correctly
implement a simple string comparison against the value(s) in
DAV:resourcetype. I do not have faith that *all* client implementors will
(a) think about the issue long enough to realize that they can, in fact,
infer the resource types from the supported live properties, and (b)
implement the inference logic uniformly and correctly. Clients and servers
don't even support the "charset" MIME parameter uniformly, and this is
relatively simple in comparison.
Therefore, I recommend that the DeltaV specification *keep* the
DAV:activity, DAV:version-history, and DAV:baseline resourcetype values.
- Jim